1000 yds rushing and 300 yds recieving streak

[DeaconMoss]

1200 to1400 rushing yards and 12 to 15 td's and 40 to 50 receptions would be a good season.

I think that would be a phenomenal season for a rookie.

 

[Sydla]

That depends on whose expectations you are referring to.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Zeke...was before the Cowboys drafted him and I have high expectations for him. But, if the Cowboys are wise, they will limit his touches throughout the season. There is no reason to try and force a Murray-of-2014-like workload on Zeke, when the Cowboys have Morris working behind him and plenty of other weapons to carry the offense.

Interesting considering that was the argument people made for not taking a TB at 4 that pro-Zeke people argued against.

 

[jday]

I will need you to elaborate. What does not drafting Zeke have to with not abusing him with carries, especially since he has decent backup?

 

[JoeKing]

Even with Zeke potentially being a flop, the 1000 yard streak is safe as long as McFadden is on the roster. It's really not all about the O-line despite what some of us want to be believed.

 

[Sydla]

I will need you to elaborate. What does not drafting Zeke have to with not abusing him with carries, especially since he has decent backup?

The argument made for not taking Elliott at #4 was that TBs take a beating and that you wouldn't get the true value of a TB at #4 if you had to "limit" his usage to prevent him from taking a beating and when you had McFadden and Morris as backups, you didn't need an elite, bell cow TB. If you take a WR at #4, he's on the field almost every single play. You take an OT at #4, he's on the field every single play offensive play. You take a QB at #4 and if he's the starter, he's on the field every single offensive snap. But a TB at #4? He's not going to play nearly as much as the other positions you could take at 4. Hence, you weren't getting true value at 4 taking a guy that plays a position that gets injured more than any other position and a position that in order to preserve him, you'd have to limit his usage.

You guys argued against that. Claiming this team couldn't get by with a RBBC approach, that we needed to get back to 2014 when we had a true bell cow TB, etc.

Now all of a sudden it's............... "Yo guys, we gotta limit Zeke's carries because TBs get hurt and we don't want to wear him down, plus we got good depth so we can use a slight RBBC approach!"

It's funny. You guys just parroted the reason for not taking Elliott at #4 and now made it your reasoning for why you want to handle the TB position as you do.

 

[Nightman]

You feed the kid all he can handle.....this isn't MLB pitching with an innings cap or pitch counts

 

[jday]

The argument made for not taking Elliott at #4 was that TBs take a beating and that you wouldn't get the true value of a TB at #4 if you had to "limit" his usage to prevent him from taking a beating and when you had McFadden and Morris as backups, you didn't need an elite, bell cow TB. If you take a WR at #4, he's on the field almost every single play. You take an OT at #4, he's on the field every single play offensive play. You take a QB at #4 and if he's the starter, he's on the field every single offensive snap. But a TB at #4? He's not going to play nearly as much as the other positions you could take at 4. Hence, you weren't getting true value at 4 taking a guy that plays a position that gets injured more than any other position and a position that in order to preserve him, you'd have to limit his usage.

I certainly can see what you are saying, but at the end of day no running back on the roster brings what Zeke brings like Zeke brings it. Lemme splain:

McFadden: He is the only other running back not named Zeke on this roster that could be consider a 3 down back. For clarification, just in case you don't know, a 3 down back does not mean he is able to stay on the field for the entirety of the game without getting tired. Truth be told, outside of AP, I'm not even sure that running back exist in today's NFL. No, a 3 down back mean's that they are also good in pass protection. That is not just important in the effort to protect your quarterback. That is important because with that particular running back as far as the defensive opposition is concerned, the entirety of an offenses playbook is open. However, in McFadden case, that's not exactly the case because he struggles running in the Zone Blocking Scheme. To be fair, what DMac does really well as a runner is running fast in a straight line. Which means, as long as everything is blocked up just right, he can produce, as we all saw last year. When you consider that with the fact that he is an injury waiting to happen, you should be able to understand why the Cowboys did not want him as a lead back in 2016.

Morris: When he was producing, he was an excellent Zone Blocking Scheme runner. That's his forte. However, he is not a 3 down back. So in a world were Zeke was not drafted by the Cowboys and the Cowboys employed the RBBC formula, the opposing defense would know that the Cowboys are looking to pass when Morris came off the field. That pretty much cut's the playbook in half for the opposition and makes guess work a whole helluva lot easier. As you can imagine, that is not ideal for the Cowboys offense.

Dunbar and Jackson are definitely not 3 down backs.

You guys argued against that. Claiming this team couldn't get by with a RBBC approach, that we needed to get back to 2014 when we had a true bell cow TB, etc.

In future debates, please remove the word pairing "you guys" from your vocabulary. My name is not "you guys" nor do I have the time or motivation to attempt to argue "you guys" point. Whatever their point was, that's not my point. My point was Zeke brings the ability to do everything the Cowboys are going to want him to do better than anyone they presently have. When drafting, that's pretty much the idea. If you can get a guy who does it better than anyone you presently have you get him...especially when your scheme success depends so heavily on what that particular guy does very well. This year that guy was Zeke and I for one could not be happier. But that doesn't mean that the Cowboys shouldn't exercise caution in how they use him. Not that I'm predicting Super Bowl but that's the whole reason they play and you want to make sure your guy's have something left if you should get there. That's all I'm saying.

Now all of a sudden it's............... "Yo guys, we gotta limit Zeke's carries because TBs get hurt and we don't want to wear him down, plus we got good depth so we can use a slight RBBC approach!"

In that case, we will also be employing Receiver by committee. Tight End by committee. Offensive line by committee. Defensive line by committee. So if you should see someone other than starter out there, now you know why.

It's funny. You guys just parroted the reason for not taking Elliott at #4 and now made it your reasoning for why you want to handle the TB position as you do.

This really makes no sense, to be honest. Anyone who has followed football long enough knows that players get tired from time to time. If you can, it is awesome to have players backing up starters who can produce at a high level in the starters absence. Ideally, you have that at every position but in today's Capped NFL, that is not a reality. But since the Cowboys offense depends so heavily on their ability to effectively run the ball, it's a good thing they have a stocked cupboard of running backs.

 

[boyzjunkie]

1200 to1400 rushing yards and 12 to 15 td's and 40 to 50 receptions would be a good season.

For any running back ever.